REMOTE PILOT

Nice Half-Hour Piece on CNN: "Warfare By Remote"

Our Take On Report Regarding UAV Targeting Tech

So, we we're checking out this piece published today over at Wired news titled "CIA Drone Targeting Tech Revealed, Al Qaeda Claims."  

It says that the ranks of terrorists and insurgents in Afghanistan are being decimated by unmanned aircraft; this appears to affirm a comment made by CIA director Leon Panetta in May:  ""Very Frankly (UAVs) are the only game in town in terms of confronting and trying to disrupt Al Qaeda leadership."  

The Wired piece adds that said UAVs -- at least according to a certain Taliban commander (a "bad-guy-in- charge") -- are guided to their targets using, amongst other things, SIM cards surreptitiously added to militant cell phones, planted 9V-battery-powered infrared beacons, or other presumably small, plant-able homing devices.   

Of course, the article ends with mention of an alleged program "backfire" of sorts.  

We read of the confession (prior to his alleged execution) of a 19 year old, U.S.-paid, presumably Pakistani "planter" of homing devices who says that since he needed money, he started "throwing the (homing) chips all over." 

So, we are led to believe that perhaps the planter placed "chips" on the wrong people and correspondingly, that perhaps the wrong people have been killed by UAVs on occasion.   

Here's our take on all this:   

1. Sure, if we were looking to perform precision, surprise attacks on certain bad guys, then yes we might enlist "insider" individuals on the ground to plant a "means" which might "light-the-way" to a particular target.  But would we use a 19 year old dude?  No, we'd use people already long-since proved reliable; this means we're probably talking people aged anywhere from 30-65, old enough to suggest they may have some kind of pre-war track-record with us.  
2. We suspect that once diplomatic arrangements with   Pakistani leadership were made (probably years ago), the U.S. began to operate there with free reign -- at least in the areas adjacent to Afghanistan.  Our move in to eastern Pakistan likely began with psyop communications to encourage the non-combatant population of the area to leave.  We then employed thermal imaging and certain satellite-based technology to assess the remaining population, a population that obviously had some reason for sticking around.  We then "eliminated" said population -- at least those who were revealed as armed and assembling.  And of course the U.S. naturally killed some non-combatants as a result. 
3. Which is where we come back to our 19 year old dude again.  He is actually one of a number of "fall guys" we have "cast" to cover our asses over there.  He's depicted as money-motivated enough to place his (targeting) "chips" on as many parties/locations as possible, combatant or no; therefore when innocents in eastern Pakistan are killed by U.S. UAVs, the 19 year old and others like him serve as plausible culprits.    (Was he ultimately captured and executed by the "Taliban?"  We say don't count on it. He's probably alive and well taking college courses in the States under a new identity)

Troop Transports: The Only Military Air-Craft Type That Wouldn't Work As A UAV?

When we compare military remotely-piloted aircraft to traditional aircraft, we start to wonder the following:  where does the former stop and the latter start in the 21st century and beyond?

UAVs have already made apparent in-roads as tools for aerial surveillance and, more recently, ground support.   But will they also start making in-roads in to the other aerial "provinces" dominated formerly only by manned air-craft?  Will they see use as fighter aircraft, large-payload bombers, troop/cargo carriers, or tankers?

We'd say sure, at least conceivably.  

Obviously with remote fighter aircraft -- if there was really a need for fighter aircraft at all -- we'd deduce that they couldn't be remotely-piloted from half a world away without an approximately 1 second lag at the controls.  

However, if these remote fighter aircraft were controlled by remote pilots located within a significantly closer radius -- not 12,500 miles but say 500 miles -- then the control lag might drop below significance for aerial combat.  

(This control lag issue is already a factor when the USAF employs Predators and Reapers.  Nearby remote pilots in Iraq take care of their take-offs and landings in those cases; only while on the air are these planes controlled by remote pilots in Nevada.) 

How about remote bombers, say something analogous to a B-52, B-1 or B-2?  Sure at least in theory. Same goes for cargo aircraft.  And same for tanker aircraft for aerial refueling (Although the close- quarters of the tankers and aircraft needing fuel would presumably make the remote control-lag issue at at an extreme distance rear its head again) 

Troop transports are the only type of military air-craft where we might have "non-technical" reservations about their potential as a remotely piloted platforms.   We think people flying as passengers want people there flying the plane, not on the ground piloting it at a distance.  

But we may be wrong, you never know.  Astronauts have long survived missions as essentially "spam-in-a-can" -- that is, having no control of the vehicle they are in.  So, we may overestimate the negative reaction that people or soliders potentially flying as passengers in UAVs may have.        
 

No Flier in the U.S. Air Force Loves UAVs...

And this includes current UAV pilots themselves.

There, we at Remotepilot.com said it!  Somebody had to.

Look at the faces of the guys at Creech Air Force Base in Nevada working 12 hour shifts, 7 days a week, 120 days straight.  Are their eyes "smiling" like these guys were getting serviced at a Nevada brothel? 

No way, these guys want to be back in the air doing something they love -- "pushing" an F-18 or F-15.  Then their eyes'll probably start to "smile" again.   

Look at the higher ups in the Air Force, themselves mostly fliers.  Here's how they talk about UAVs:  

"They (UAVs) are part of a growing area in the Air Force (blah), ...look at the tech involved with them (blah), ...the guys at the Pentagon love us (blah)."

Yes, truly inspirational, impassioned words; they make young people want to devote their lives to something great -- like being full-time glue sniffers.

  

Seriously, though, Remotepilot.com will say that Air Force higher-ups do at least accord UAVs begrudging respect in one regard:  for the aerial "persistence" which their platform affords   

  

Problem is, dogs are "persistent."  The guys who knock on our doors selling security systems are "persistent."  That fact that a lot of people in Afghanistan don't bathe -- that's "persistent."  Just because something is "persistent" doesn't mean it engenders any sort of love.

Given that the U.S. Air Force want's to almost triple the number of UAV pilots by 2012,  Remotepilot.com thinks the US Air Force needs to secure the "sales-services" of people who -- in some cases -- do potentially love what UAVs do:  Army, Navy, Marine "combat team" members in Afghanistan as well as the Air Force's own Special Tactics personnel.

These are the guys who may see UAVs as literally a gift -- a flying one -- that keeps on giving.  These are the guys who can tell a bunch of 20 year old Air Force Cadets why they are the $hit for devoting their careers to driving UAVs instead of opting for "sphincter-duty" aboard come-and-go "Bomb-Cats."

No flier in the U.S. Air Force loves UAVs, yet the service demands an almost tripling of the number of UAV pilots in the next three years. Remotepilot.com says the Air Force should look to ground combatants in-house -- but mostly in the other services -- to make the case to Air Force Cadets who are undecided or put-off by the idea of driving UAVs. 

What Are All the "Live Drivers" Going To Do?

                                      

We were reading through Defensetech.org yesterday and came across a post titled, "Top Gun (Sans Top Gunners)."  

In it was an interesting comment that touched on a possible growth "avenue" for manned, military jet fighter/attack pilots in the future.  This was a concept we had not considered before.  Below is the comment in its entirety: 

" UAVs support the teams on the ground in Afghanistan.

A UAV gets shot down, you don't have to waste time sending a rescue team out to recover the guy/gal.

UAVs can loiter (and loiter some more). Theoretically, fresh flight crews on the ground can rotate at thecontrols until the UAV's fuel runs out (Years in case of Global Hawk, which is recon only).

Teams on the ground don't need to roll the dice calling in some "live driver" who's been amped on Dexedrine for the last 12 hours and who'll "hopefully" miss the friendlies.

US and allied Combat fighter/attack pilots certainly rock and are a highly skilled elite. But these days their `only peer competition is basically... themselves.

As such, civilians probably view fighter pilots/planes these days as kind of like an NFL team in a  League of 1: "Yeah its fun to hear of their "practices" and "scrimmages," but the last air-to-air "game day" was, what, 1990-91?

My advice to fighter/attack pilots, all the military, fast-moving, "live drivers" in combat jets: Go in to business manufacturing one and two seat super-sonic jets for the civilian market-place. That's where you'll see renewed appreciation for your skills and know-how. "

Posted by: Barnacle Bob at June 10, 2009 12:34 AM"

We don't know how accurate the statements in this "Barnacle Bob's" post were, but the point about developing one and two seat super-sonic jets for civilian use is a rather interesting concept.   Perhaps that is the evolution of military fighter/attack jet technology:  It is reconfigured for a civilian market-place as are its former operators. 

Who knows, In 20 years maybe it'll be common-place to go to Malibu Beach on a weekend and watch as dozens of  privately-owned "sports-jet" air-craft contest in air-to-air combat over the Pacific Ocean for million dollar purses?  Maybe you'll have a future in which 1000s of people buy and fly civilian, super-sonic jet aircraft that are vastly updated versions of this Bede BD-5 Micro:

   

                                        

                                               

We here at remotepilot.com certainly do believe that as UAVs, to some extent, push manned military air-craft aside in certain applications, that we will see said "push" cause a corresponding over-flow of some of the technology from (And love of) the aforementioned manned military air-craft in to the civilian market-place.  

After all, we'll just have too many fighter/attack-jocks on the street that need a new home.  And the public will certainly want to put these well-liked, highly trained pilots to work doing something new and interesting ;-)